Large publishing consortia produce higher citation impact research but co-author contributions are hard to evaluate

This paper introduces a simple agglomerative clustering method to identify large publishing consortia with at least 20 authors and 80% shared authorship between articles. Based on Scopus journal articles 1996-2018, under these criteria, nearly all (88%) of the large consortia published research with citation impact above the world average, with the exceptions being mainly the newer consortia for which average citation counts are unreliable. On average, consortium research had almost double (1.95) the world average citation impact on the log scale used (Mean Normalised Log Citation Score). At least partial alphabetical author ordering was the norm in most consortia. The 250 largest consortia were for nuclear physics and astronomy around expensive equipment, and for predominantly health-related issues in genomics, medicine, public health, microbiology and neuropsychology. For the health-related issues, except for the first and last few authors, authorship seem to primary indicate contributions to the shared project infrastructure necessary to gather the raw data. It is impossible for research evaluators to identify the contributions of individual authors in the huge alphabetical consortia of physics and astronomy, and problematic for the middle and end authors of health-related consortia. For small scale evaluations, authorship contribution statements could be used, when available

Managing Collections Between the Chemists and the Consortium: Assessment, Engagement, and Creativity

Managing The Ohio State University Libraries' collection of chemistry journals within OhioLINK's consortial environment mixes objective assessment with engaging the chemistry faculty and the consortium. Basing collection decisions on hard facts has the immediate goal of cost-effectiveness. The most effective technique is a mediated three-party dialogue of the library managers, the chemistry faculty, and the consortium with the long-term goal of reforming scholarly communication. Many methods to assess electronic journals are available, such as article download statistics, impact factors, Eigenfactors, cost per article and cost per citation data, and engaging faculty input. The reality, however, is that high subscription costs do not diminish the importance of chemistry journals to the faculty. Assessment of consortial electronic journal subscription packages is crucial to managing collection content effectively, but library managers and chemistry faculty often disagree about the appropriate assessment method. The most effective approach is a combination of several assessment methods coupled with clear and open communication of the facts. Communicating the results of the assessment techniques is more than a matter of giving the faculty the bad news. The most effective and credible assessment methodology always includes communicating faculty input to the consortium. Difficult decisions are easier to make, announce, and live with when all stakeholders openly share information

Reports Of Conferences, Institutes, And Seminars

This quarter\u27s column offers coverage of multiple sessions from the 2016 Electronic Resources & Libraries (ER&L) Conference, held April 3–6, 2016, in Austin, Texas. Topics in serials acquisitions dominate the column, including reports on altmetrics, cost per use, demand-driven acquisitions, and scholarly communications and the use of subscriptions agents; ERMS, access, and knowledgebases are also featured

Why are co-authored academic articles more cited:Higher quality or larger audience?

This is an accepted manuscript of an article due to be published by Wiley in the Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. The accepted version of the publication may differ from the final published version.Collaboration is encouraged because it is believed to improve academic research, supported by indirect evidence in the form of more co-authored articles being more cited. Nevertheless, this might not reflect quality but increased self-citations or the “audience effect”: citations from increased awareness through multiple author networks. We address this with the first science wide investigation into whether author numbers associate with journal article quality, using expert peer quality judgements for 122,331 articles from the 2014-20 UK national assessment. Spearman correlations between authors numbers and quality scores show moderately strong positive associations (0.2-0.4) in the health, life, and physical sciences, but weak or no positive associations in engineering and social sciences, with weak negative/positive or no association in various arts and humanities, and a possible negative association for decision sciences. This gives the first systematic evidence that greater numbers of authors associates with higher quality journal articles in the majority of academia outside the arts and humanities, at least for the UK. Positive associations between team size and citation counts in areas with little association between team size and quality also show that audience effects or other non-quality factors account for the higher citation rates of co-authored articles in some fields.This study was funded by Research England, Scottish Funding Council, Higher Education Funding Council for Wales, and Department for the Economy, Northern Ireland as part of the Future Research Assessment Programme (https://www.jisc.ac.uk/future-research-assessment-programme)

The metric tide: report of the independent review of the role of metrics in research assessment and management

This report presents the findings and recommendations of the Independent Review of the Role of Metrics in Research Assessment and Management. The review was chaired by Professor James Wilsdon, supported by an independent and multidisciplinary group of experts in scientometrics, research funding, research policy, publishing, university management and administration. This review has gone beyond earlier studies to take a deeper look at potential uses and limitations of research metrics and indicators. It has explored the use of metrics across different disciplines, and assessed their potential contribution to the development of research excellence and impact. It has analysed their role in processes of research assessment, including the next cycle of the Research Excellence Framework (REF). It has considered the changing ways in which universities are using quantitative indicators in their management systems, and the growing power of league tables and rankings. And it has considered the negative or unintended effects of metrics on various aspects of research culture. The report starts by tracing the history of metrics in research management and assessment, in the UK and internationally. It looks at the applicability of metrics within different research cultures, compares the peer review system with metric-based alternatives, and considers what balance might be struck between the two. It charts the development of research management systems within institutions, and examines the effects of the growing use of quantitative indicators on different aspects of research culture, including performance management, equality, diversity, interdisciplinarity, and the ‘gaming’ of assessment systems. The review looks at how different funders are using quantitative indicators, and considers their potential role in research and innovation policy. Finally, it examines the role that metrics played in REF2014, and outlines scenarios for their contribution to future exercises

Library purchasing consortia in the UK: activity, benefits and good practice.

Following a brief introduction in Section 1, Section 2 sets out the operational context of library purchasing consortia. A range of key factors have shaped recent developments in the four LIS sectors under consideration (FE, HE, health and public libraries); some have exerted a common influence over all (e.g. information technology, European Commission purchasing directives, new central government, decline in bookfunds); some are sector-specific (e.g. purchasing arrangements, regional administrative frameworks, collaborative partnerships). The structure and markets of the book and periodical publishing industry in the UK are reviewed, with attention paid to historical as well as more recent practice that has had an impact on library supply. Although each component of the LIS purchasing consortia jigsaw displays individual characteristics that have evolved as a response to its own environment, the thread that links them together is constant change. Section 3 presents the results of a survey of identified library purchasing consortia in the four library sectors. It treats common themes of relevance to all consortia arising from information gathered by seminar input, questionnaire and interview. These include models of consortium operation, membership and governance, ‘typical’ composition of consortia in each sector, and links to analogous practice in other library sectors. Common features of the tendering and contract management process are elicited and attention paid to any contribution of procurement professionals. Finally, levels of consortium expenditure and cost savings are estimated from the published statistical record, which readily demonstrate in financial terms the efficiency of the consortial purchase model for all types of library in the United Kingdom. Section 4 presents the results of a survey of suppliers to libraries in the United Kingdom of books and periodicals, the two sectors most commonly represented in current contracts of library purchasing consortia. It sets out in some detail the operating context governing the highly segmented activities of library booksellers, as well as that pertaining to periodicals suppliers (also known as subscription agents). Detailed responses to questions on the effects of library purchasing consortia on suppliers of both materials have been gathered by questionnaire survey and selected follow-up interviews. Results are presented and analysed according to supply sector with attention given to the tendering process, current contracts under way, cross-sectoral clientele, and advantages and inhibitors of consortia supply. Further responses are reported on issues of how consortia have affected suppliers’ volume of trade, operating margins and market stability as perceived in their own business, the library supply sector and the publishing industry. Finally, overall conclusions are drawn and projections made as to future implications for both types of library suppliers. Section 5 synthesises findings, details enabling and inhibiting factors for consortia formation and models of best practice amongst consortia. The scope for cross-sectoral collaboration is discussed and found to be limited at present. Pointers are given for future activity

A study into the availability of and access to electronic journals for teaching and research by the academic staff at the Faculty of Agriculture, University of Zimbabwe

Includes bibliographical references.Researchers have relied on journals as a source of current research information for more than 350 years. In sub-Saharan Africa, researchers and libraries complain about a lack of access to subscription electronic journals despite an increase in electronic journals access schemes for developing countries. Furthermore, African researchers lag behind in publishing their work when compared to their counterparts in the developed world. Research was carried out in the Faculty of Agriculture at the University of Zimbabwe, which sought to investigate electronic journal availability from the researchers’ perspectives; to discover how electronic journals are used for teaching and research; and how faculty use journals in their publications. To explore this multi-faceted objective, four key sub-objectives emanated from the main research objective. The first sub-objective was to determine to what extent the available electronic journal collections met faculty’s electronic journal teaching and research needs. The second was to establish journal usage through analysing journals cited in faculty research papers and reading lists given to graduate students. The third was to understand the problems if any, encountered in accessing electronic journals –establishing the nature and frequency of these problems. The last was to explore if academic staff desire and publish their research and in the process, to understand the obstacles they face. This study used methodological triangulation, and data was gathered through three main research methods. These were an electronic journal availability study, a 26 question- 7 survey, and a citation analysis. Each respective method addressed a respective sub-objective, with an overlap of methods for the fourth objective. The findings revealed that 85.5% of the required journals were available across the available electronic journals collections. Faculty members use electronic journals for their work; however, they need training to access and to be aware of what journal content is available. While faculty members aim to be published, evidence indicated that they use less recent journals in their published works. There was no evidence that suggested that access to electronic journals alone leads to increased publications

Domestic researchers with longer careers generate higher average citation impact but it does not increase over time

© The Authors. Published by MIT Press. This is an open access article available under a Creative Commons licence. The published version can be accessed at the following link on the publisher’s website: https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00132Information about the relative strengths of scholars is needed for the efficient running of knowledge systems. Since academic research requires many skills, more experienced researchers might produce better research and attract more citations. This article assesses career citation impact changes 2001-2016 for domestic researchers (definition: first and last Scopus journal article in the same country) from the twelve nations with most Scopus documents. Careers are analysed longitudinally, so that changes are not due to personnel evolution, such as researchers leaving or entering a country. The results show that long term domestic researchers do not tend to improve their citation impact over time but tend to achieve their average citation impact by their first or second Scopus journal article. In some countries, this citation impact subsequently declines. These longer-term domestic researchers have higher citation impact than the national average in all countries, however, whereas scholars publishing only one journal article have substantially lower citation impact in all countries. The results are consistent with an efficiently functioning researcher selection system but cast slight doubt on the long-term citation impact potential of long-term domestic researchers. Research and funding policies may need to accommodate these patterns when citation impact is a relevant indicator

PATHWAYS TO OPEN ACCESS

Pursuant to the University of California (UC) Council of University Librarian’s (CoUL)1 3 August 2017 charge, this Pathways to OA Working Group2 has identified the current universe of Open Access (OA) approaches, and has analyzed the suite of strategies available for effectuating those approaches. Each approach described within this Pathways document offers unique and, in some cases, overlapping challenges, opportunities, and room for experimentation. The strategies examined here create space and freedom for the campuses to pursue both individualized and connected paths toward a large-scale transition to OA—though as we highlight below, collective action on implementing the strategies is likely to bear greater fruit. To help guide such a path forward, we identify possible next steps that each or all of the UC libraries can pursue to advance each approach. Definitions 1 Approaches & Strategies 2 Green OA 2 Gold OA, APC-based 12 Gold OA, Non-APC Funded 23 Universal Strategies 28 Possible Next Steps 35 Green OA 35 Gold OA, APC-based 36 Gold OA, Non-APC-based 37 Universal Strategies 38 Selected Bibliograph